- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Method
- •1.2.1 Databases
- •1.2.2 Dates
- •1.2.3 Keywords
- •1.2.4 Criteria for Inclusion
- •1.2.5 Criteria for Exclusion
- •1.2.6 Selection of Papers
- •1.3 Results
- •1.3.1 Subspecialty
- •1.3.2 Type of Telemedicine
- •1.3.3 Study Design
- •1.3.4 Final Conclusions of Papers
- •1.4 Discussion
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 The Need for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Programs
- •2.4 Guidelines for Referring Patients
- •2.7 Program Models for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
- •2.9 Program Personnel and Operations
- •2.9.1 Primary Care Providers
- •2.9.2 Photographers
- •2.9.3 Clinical Consultants
- •2.9.4 Administrators
- •2.9.5 A Note to CEOs, Operations Directors, and Clinic Managers
- •2.10 Policies and Procedures
- •2.10.1 Sample Protocol 1
- •2.10.1.1 Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Services
- •Policy
- •Background
- •Procedure
- •2.10.2 Sample Protocol 2
- •2.10.2.1 Pupil Dilation Before Diabetic Retinopathy Photography
- •Policy
- •Background
- •Procedure
- •2.10.3 Sample Protocol 3
- •2.10.3.1 Diabetic Retinopathy Photography Review
- •Policy
- •Background
- •Procedure
- •2.11 Technical Requirements
- •2.11.1 Connectivity
- •2.11.2 Resolution
- •2.11.3 Color
- •2.11.4 Stereopsis
- •2.11.5 Compression
- •2.11.6 Enhancement
- •2.11.7 Pupil Dilation
- •2.11.8 Early California Telemedicine Initiatives Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
- •2.11.9 The American Indian Diabetes Teleophthalmology Grant Program
- •2.11.10 Central Valley EyePACS Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Project
- •2.12.1 Diabetic Retinopathy
- •2.12.1.1 ADA Guidelines Terms
- •2.12.1.2 Vitrectomy
- •References
- •3: Stereopsis and Teleophthalmology
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 History of Stereopsis and Stereopsis in Ophthalmology
- •3.3 Technology and Photography
- •3.3.3 Imaging Fields
- •3.3.4 Image Viewing Techniques
- •3.3.5 Image Compression
- •3.4 Stereoscopic Teleophthalmology Systems
- •3.4.1 University of Alberta
- •3.4.4 Joslin Vision Network
- •3.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Methods
- •4.2.1 Main Outcome Measures
- •4.3 Results
- •4.3.1 Retinal Video Recording Versus Retinal Still Photography
- •4.3.2 Video Compression Analysis
- •4.4 Discussion
- •References
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.1.1 Automated, Remote Image Analysis of Retinal Diseases
- •5.1.2 Telehealth
- •5.2 Design Requirements
- •5.2.1 Telehealth Network Architecture
- •5.2.2 Work Flow
- •5.2.3 Performance Evaluation of the Network
- •5.3 Automated Image Analysis Overview
- •5.3.1 Quality Assessment Module
- •5.3.2 Vascular Tree Segmentation
- •5.3.3 Quality Evaluation
- •5.4 Anatomic Structure Segmentation
- •5.4.1 Optic Nerve Detection
- •5.4.2 Macula
- •5.4.3 Lesion Segmentation
- •5.4.4 Lesion Population Description
- •5.4.5 Image Query
- •5.5 Summary
- •References
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.3 Optical Coherence Tomography to Detect Leakage
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Patients and Methods
- •7.2.1 Participants
- •7.2.2 Methods
- •7.2.3 Statistics
- •7.3 Results
- •7.3.1 Reliability of Image Evaluation
- •7.3.2 Prevalence of Glaucomatous Optic Nerve Atrophy
- •7.4 Discussion
- •7.5 Perspectives
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.1.2 Homology Between Retinal and Systemic Microvasculature
- •8.1.3 Need for More Precise CVD Risk Prediction
- •8.2.1 Retinal Microvascular Signs
- •8.2.2 Retinal Vessel Biometry
- •8.2.3 Newer Retinal Imaging for Morphologic Features of Retinal Vasculature
- •8.3 Associations of Retinal Imaging and CVD Risk
- •8.3.1.1 Risk of Pre-clinical CVD
- •8.3.1.2 Risk of Stroke
- •8.3.1.3 Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
- •8.3.2.1 Risk of Hypertension
- •8.3.2.2 Risk of Stroke
- •8.3.2.3 Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
- •8.3.2.4 Risk of Peripheral Artery Disease
- •8.3.3 Newer Morphologic Features of Retinal Vasculature
- •8.4 Retinal Imaging and Its Potential as a Tool for CVD Risk Prediction
- •References
- •9.1 Alzheimer’s Disease
- •9.2 Treatments
- •9.3 Diagnosis
- •9.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.1.1 Stroke
- •10.1.2 Heart Disease
- •10.1.3 Arteriovenous Ratio
- •10.2 Purpose
- •10.3 Method
- •10.3.1 Medical Approach
- •10.3.2 Technical Approach
- •10.3.3 Output of Medical Data
- •10.4 Patients
- •10.5 Results
- •10.5.1 Medical History
- •10.5.2 Telemedical Evaluation of Retinal Vessels
- •10.5.2.1 Prevalence of Retinal Microangiopathy
- •10.5.2.2 Arteriovenous Ratio
- •10.5.2.3 PROCAM-Index
- •10.6 Discussion and Perceptive
- •10.6.1 Estimation of “Stroke Risk” Estimated by the Stage of Retinal Microangiopathy
- •References
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 System Requirements
- •11.3 Fundus Camera
- •11.4 Imaging Procedure
- •11.4.1 Reading Center Procedure
- •11.5 Detection of Macular Edema
- •11.6 Implementation
- •11.7 Unreadable Images
- •11.7.1 Impact on Overall Diabetic Retinopathy Assessment Rates
- •11.7.2 Compliance with Recommendations
- •11.7.3 Challenges
- •11.7.4 Summary
- •References
- •12.1 Screening
- •12.2 Background
- •12.3 Historical Perspective in England
- •12.4 Methodology
- •12.4.1 The Aim of the Programme
- •12.5 Systematic DR Screening
- •12.6 Cameras for Use in the English Screening Programme
- •12.7 Software for Use in the English Screening Programme
- •12.9 Implementation in England
- •12.11 Quality Assurance
- •12.12 The Development of External Quality Assurance in the English Screening Programme
- •12.13 Information Technology (IT) Developments for the English Screening Programme
- •12.14 Dataset Development
- •12.15 The Development of External Quality Assurance Test Set for the English Screening Programme
- •12.16 Failsafe
- •12.17 The Epidemic of Diabetes
- •References
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.2 Burden of Diabetes and Diabetic Retinopathy in India
- •13.3 Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Models
- •13.4 Need for Telescreening
- •13.5 Guidelines for Telescreening
- •13.6 ATA Categories of DR Telescreening Validation
- •13.7 Yield of Diabetic Retinopathy in a Telescreening Model
- •13.8 How Are Images Transferred
- •13.10 How Many Fields Are Enough for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
- •13.11 Is Mydriasis Needed While Using Nonmydriatic Camera?
- •13.12 Validation Studies on Telescreening
- •13.12.1 Accuracy of Telescreening
- •13.12.2 Patient Satisfaction in Telescreening
- •13.12.3 Cost Effectivity
- •13.12.4 Telescreening for Diabetic Retinopathy: Our Experience
- •13.13 Future of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening
- •References
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Methods
- •14.3 Discussion
- •14.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.1.1 Description of the EADRSI
- •15.5 State Support of Screening in the Safety Net
- •15.7 Screening Economics for Providers
- •15.8 Patient Sensitivity to Fees
- •15.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Setting Up the New Screening Model
- •16.2.1 Phase 1: Training
- •16.2.2 Phase 2: Evaluation of Agreement
- •16.2.3 Phase 3: Implementation of the Screening Model
- •16.3 Technologic Requirements
- •16.3.1 Data Management
- •16.3.2 Data Models
- •16.3.2.1 Data Scheme for Patient-Related Information
- •16.3.2.2 Data Scheme for Images
- •Fundus Camera VISUCAM Pro NM
- •PACS Server
- •ClearCanvas DICOM Visualizer
- •16.4 Results
- •16.4.1 Phase 2: Agreement Evaluation
- •16.4.2 Phase 3: Implementation of the Screening Model
- •16.5 Discussion
- •16.5.1 Evaluation of the Screening Model
- •16.5.2 Prevalence of DR
- •16.5.3 Quality Evaluation
- •16.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •17.1.3 Examination and Treatment
- •17.1.4 Limitations of Current Care
- •17.2 Telemedicine and ROP
- •17.2.2 Accuracy and Reliability of Telemedicine for ROP Diagnosis
- •17.2.3 Operational ROP Telemedicine Systems
- •17.2.4 Potential Barriers
- •17.3 Closing Remarks
- •17.3.1 Future Directions
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Neonatal Stress and Pain
- •18.3 ROP Screening Technique
- •18.4 Effect of Different Examination Techniques on Stress
- •18.5 Future of Retinal Imaging in Babies
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 History of the Program
- •19.3 Telehealth Technologies
- •19.4 Impact of the Program
- •Selected References
- •Preamble
- •Introduction
- •Background
- •The Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS)
- •Mission
- •Vision
- •Goals
- •Guiding Principles
- •Ethics
- •Clinical Validation
- •Category 1
- •Category 2
- •Category 3
- •Category 4
- •Communication
- •Medical Care Supervision
- •Patient Care Coordinator
- •Image Acquisition
- •Image Review and Evaluation
- •Information Systems
- •Interoperability
- •Image Acquisition
- •Compression
- •Data Communication and Transmission
- •Computer Display
- •Archiving and Retrieval
- •Security
- •Reliability and Redundancy
- •Documentation
- •Image Analysis
- •Legal Requirements
- •Facility Accreditation
- •Privileging and Credentialing
- •Stark Act and Self-referrals
- •State Medical Practice Acts/Licensure
- •Tort Liability
- •Duty
- •Standards of Care
- •Consent
- •Quality Control
- •Operations
- •Customer Support
- •Originating Site
- •Transmission
- •Distant Site
- •Financial Factors
- •Reimbursement
- •Grants
- •Federal Programs
- •Other Financial Factors
- •Equipment Cost
- •Summary
- •Abbreviations
- •Appendices
- •Appendix A: Interoperability
- •Appendix B: DICOM Metadata
- •Appendix C: Computer-Aided Detection
- •Appendix D: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- •Appendix F: Quality Control
- •Appendix H: Customer Support
- •Level 1
- •Level 2
- •Level 3
- •Appendix I: Reimbursement
- •Medicare
- •Medicaid
- •Commercial Insurance Carrier Reimbursement
- •Other Financial Factors
- •Disease Prevention
- •Resource Utilization
- •American Telemedicine Association’s Telehealth Practice Recommendations for Diabetic Retinopathy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Contributors
- •Second Edition
- •First Edition
- •Index
162 |
J. Andonegui et al. |
|
|
interesting characteristics for the current project [18, 19]. The most noteworthy general features of this viewer are the following:
1. The viewer has an intuitive interface that is easy for new users to learn and use, which makes it easier to expand the screening model by adding new referring physicians to the system.
2.The viewer is based on an open-source software.
3.The viewer has a customizable code. The main tree of the project is offered in a way that each user can personalize it for speciÞc needs. The ClearCanvas Workstation has customization possible at different levels; for example, we can easily customize the toolbar by adding or deleting favorite physician gadgets from the default list of the viewer. The toolbar allows these conÞgurations without programming interactions. When more complex changes or extra contributions are needed, direct editing of the source code is necessary, which can be achieved by editing the main source code or creating a plug-in that works over the main code. Because ClearCanvas is based on C# programming language, both methods of development require NET knowledge.
4.The product is supported by the wholesaler. Discussion forums are available on the viewerÕs ofÞcial webpage. Anyone can contribute to or help with ideas and problems about the viewer and share programming codes or plugins between developers. Some problems identiÞed during setup of the viewer for ophthalmology were solved thanks to the technical support of ClearCanvas.
5.The viewer has a multimonitor working mode. Working in this mode with several monitors mode accelerates image assessment. The user can divide the patient information and the images into different screens with all data visible simultaneously.
6.An imaging tool is also available. This multipurpose viewer presents some interesting image tools, such as a magnifying glass, zoom capability, thumbnails button, image layout, and spatial locator, among others. This makes it possible to delimitate the most used imaging tools in ophthalmology.
Regarding the DICOM features, the most relevant are the following:
1.The DICOM complies with the existing industry standards, such as DICOM, HL7, and IHE.
2.According to the DICOM standard, the viewer satisÞes image communication aspects related to a PACS, such as query, import, send, and image receiving.
3.Study Þltering is another outstanding characteristic of ClearCanvas. This feature offers the ability to Þlter studies depending on one or more attributes of interest. Thus, specialists can manage the image repository depending on the value of the DICOM attributes of their choice such as patient identiÞcation, modality, date, physicianÕs name, or referring physicianÕs name, among others.
4.The DICOM workstation allows linking of a customized list of attributes to a modality and shows them by default overlayed over the image on the screen. Information needs among specialists from different medical Þelds can differ depending on each oneÕs techniques. This feature allows software adaptation to each specialty. Moreover, to look up the rest of the attributes, this viewer also can display them upon demand.
5.The DICOM offers study anonymity, which is a useful feature when a clinician wants to display a study without compromising patient identity.
6.All DICOM multimedia material can be exported to well-known media formats, such as BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, TIF, or AVI.
16.4Results
16.4.1 Phase 2: Agreement Evaluation
The four GPs completed all stages of phase 1. After that, the agreement of the evaluation was performed online. The kappa indexes were 80%, 81%, 93%, and 95%, respectively. In the four cases, the conÞdence intervals included 85%. These results were considered adequate to proceed to the next phase.
